In January of 2011, a British Columbia RCMP officer, Const. Derrick Holdenried, was charged with stealing $22 in loose change from a co-worker. His colleague had noticed that change was disappearing from her desk and her supervisor set up a camera. Holdenried was caught on film stealing toonies and loonies from his colleague’s desk drawer on three occasions. He was charged with theft.

Holdenried was also suspended, pending a disciplinary hearing. It was determined in the interim that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), related to a particularly unpleasant suicide scene that the officer had attended. An elderly man had shot himself with a rifle, and Holdenried spent hours in the room, documenting the scene and taking dozens of photographs of the blood and gore that covered every surface. He also pried the rifle from the man’s cold, dead hands and reported that it took “substantial force.”

His RCMP-appointed psychologist determined that Holdenried should have taken a stress leave to deal with the aftermath of the incident, and that his petty thefts — which Holdenried confessed to and paid back the money — are a probable consequence of his PTSD. But another RCMP psychologist wrote in a report that while his theft may have been related to PTSD, it was impossible to prove a causal link. On that basis, the RCMP suspended his pay last May.

Holdenried feels that he has a disability that the RCMP has not accommodated. He has launched a human rights complaint regarding his treatment, saying that since his psychologist’s report blames his bad behaviour on a mental disability, it is discrimination for the RCMP to punish him for it.

That’s a bit of a stretch. As true as it is that PTSD is a legitimate disability that can have profound consequences on its victims, the fact remains that as an officer of the law, Holdenried should be held to a higher standard of conduct. He suffered with PTSD for months, engaging in a variety of self-destructive behaviours, before being caught stealing, and did not seek help until caught in the act. This would realistically raise doubts about his impartiality and judgment — vital requirements for a police officer. Police officers are the long-arm of the state, entrusted to use lethal force when required. It’s reasonable to expect more of them than the average citizen.

But Holdenried is not wrong when he complains that the RCMP’s disciplinary process has left him trapped in limbo. He was originally charged with theft in January of 2011, and the charges were eventually stayed. He had his pay suspended in May of 2011. It’s now June of 2012, and not only has Holdenried not had his disciplinary hearing, he hasn’t even been given a date when it’s expected to be held. During that time, he has not received any money from the RCMP, and claims that given the publicity surrounding the case, he has been unable to find work while pending a resolution. All this despite the fact that the criminal charges against him were dropped.

Holdenried believes that the RCMP wants him out, as part of demonstrating their crackdown on “bad apple” officers. He insists that he’s just a victim of his disease and should be allowed to continue serving as a police officer. That’s debatable. But he is entirely correct when he says that dragging out scheduling his disciplinary hearing for more than a year, which may ultimately end with a punishment as mild as a written reprimand being placed in Holdenried’s file, constitutes a punishment all its own.

Hodenried may ultimately be thrown out of the RCMP, or at least removed from front line duties that would place him in contact with the public (an outcome he himself agrees would be fair). If the RCMP chooses to take either of those actions, despite Holdenried’s sad mental health crisis, it would be both justified and within its rights to do so. But it owes Holdenried the courtesy of deciding in a reasonable time. Dragging out the process this long not only hurts Holdenried, but also calls the RCMP’s internal discipline processes — already under scrutiny due to several recent high-profile cases — into further question.